John...PMFJI...
IMHO such a comparison serves little purpose unless to assist dotNETers who want to assert that dotNET is just as good at "data" as VFP! Many understate the capabilities of ADO.NET. Some are very unaware of what's under the hood in .NET, and state erroneous conclusions.
Having gone through both of Rod's demos, the code demonstrates capabilities that some many not be aware of.
Being devil's advocate: in 2006, millions of small businesses use Quickbooks without knowing or caring in what tool it is written, or wanting to jump ship because it uses proprietary file-based storage. Could it be that not all customers see "development tool" as a selection criterion, or perceive shared file-based data as a major risk? Being an advocate for distinguishing between apples and oranges - people who buy Quickbooks aren't buying it for the technology. The "investment" is on a much different scale.
Decision makers for Companies, organizations, IS shops are buying for a number of things, including the technology. For some it's a minor factor - for others it's a larger factor. I've seen plenty of it.
I'm currently working with a headhunter who for months wasn't able to find a strong Fox programmer who was available. Is it sound business for a company to invest new dollars in a technology where many have moved on???
Same deal with a cash machine - you are a consumer who has little vested interest in the technology.
Sure, there are many Cobol apps still around. And in 2014 and beyond there will be Fox apps. In 1992 I wrote a DOS-based application in C++ that's still running in 280 health care clinics - it's still running today and still being maintained by someone. But I think you'd agree that's hardly the standard by which to judge forward movement.
Kevin
